I'm reciting an article I wrote here. The below content is identical. To avoid me or anyone quoting previous posts to correct half-informed crits, please read everything well before replying. I feel that names are a big problem in games these days. 'Hunter' is joining 'Dark' and 'Shadow' when it comes to what's overused, and verbs with -er added are becoming the norm for enemies such as 'Striker' or 'Steamer'. Some names point out obvious traits like Mortal Kombat's icy warrior 'Frost' or almost any character at all in Sonic the Hedgehog, like we do not notice outward traits ourselves. Some names are so uninspired that they just take after inanimate objects. A depressing few bother to come up with anything nice anymore. Here are a list of games or series just off the top of my head that uses an enemy or story element named or labeled with 'Hunter', 'Shadow' or 'Dark'.

• Metroid
• Halo
• Prototype
• Left 4 Dead
• Sonic the Hedgehog
• Mario
• Legend of Zelda
• Poke'Mon
• Yu-Gi-Oh!

7 of those 9 items are entire franchises, and some even use the aforementioned labels in more than one context. As a gamer, I'm irritated that I'm fighting yet another "Hunter" or antagonist that has the same name as the hero with "Dark" slapped on. As a developer, I'm embarrassed to be in a slew of supposedly creative people that recycle these names to the point there is no impact to them anymore. Minimalist ideas and standards are fine in many respects, but isn't this taking it a little too far? When I saw a 'Shadow Peach' at the end of Paper Mario: TTYD, I wanted to cry. I googled for rants like mine, but came up empty. I'm baffled that this barrage of stock names is still working. Halo had a better grip on things by putting a more sensible theme to their names, even though they also had a "Hunter". Aliens were referred to by rank or race and their vehicles by supernatural entities. Humans were referred to by name or rank, and their vehicles by wildlife. I felt those names had character simply because they weren't so pretentious as to name things after the appearance of the entities or what they do. For example, I'm glad the Wraith wasn't called the "Big Purple Tank" or "Blaster". Too many other games do not demonstrate the same creativity. If you made really unusual names with an almost random collection of syllables like Halo's Zuka 'Zamamee, it would pass for me. Why? Because it sticks out, and gives me a feel of the naming scheme of the alien race itself. I can't feel the same connection with "Big the Cat" or "Matrix". The name I just cited was from the Halo novel series. I haven't touched one of those books in a very long time, yet I can still recite this Elite's name from memory. It also feels cool to say, even though each of us may mispronounce it. I can't be the only one who feels this way given Halo's success, so why can't we just stick with a resonable collection of strung together syllables that flow off the tongue nicely? Enough with the 'Reapers', 'Creepers' and other cliche names that take no thought. As both a gamer and developer, I say Jaqueldo, Kanest and Gecant should be considered. I feel that the name you give your character is directly related to how much thought went into that character entirely. One more "Hunter", and I will probably end up with a monitor with a controller embedded in it. Again, I can't be the only one who feels annoyed by this. I say to all you game writers and designers out there: You can do better than "Shadow Mario", "Knuckles the Echinda" or another stinkin' "Hunter". [Edited by - zyrolasting on December 17, 2009 10:02:39 AM]

The series you mention are... classics.. most of them anyway. With that in mind, they started out with just the basic stories where there weren't any real thought to story and just went with whatever they got. It is rather ingrained in the game that it continues to do so. I don't see whats wrong with it. Trying to come up the story that would deviate from that is like suicide... probably.

If you play Japanese RPG, as far as I can tell they try to go into more stories nowadays... and they do have those names that aren't the classic Shadowy Seven or the Gruesome Twosomes... Mass Effect, though do use Reapers, use a fair amount of thoughts in their naming too probably.

This might be why you didn't find many gripes likes yours searching online... you only seem to be stating, for the most part, classics that is more or less known for their simple stories and easy fun naming.

I'm in partial agreeance. I think its not even just becoming a factor for names either, its usually similar plots, similar characters, and so on. But of the games you listed, they're describing the plots of the games in order to generate interest, or simply describe what it is. In the end, and I think a lot of people either fail to realize it or simply forget, but the video game industry is just that. It's a business, people do it because they love the medium, they love telling their stories and creating ideas, but at the end of the day, there's still a price tag on 99% of the industry, in some form, and eventually it comes down to marketing, and unfortunately, a lot of names and such are changed for this sake - especially now, since the market is becoming so competitive


Usually it's a result of trying to come up with something "cool", something that sounds so out-of-the-ordinary, that we just lose it then and there. I mean, with the SNES era of rpg's long over, I think people have to realize that we will never see these levels of originality again.

You can only have so many ideas before they start overlapping.

In a way I can understand it, these names, "dark" "shadow" "hunter" are classifications, they're staple usages for characters who portray these. I mean, "shadow the hedgehog" is essentially naming the product their releasing - its straight forward and to the point, you play the badass version of Sonic. I mean the end result is still a pile of shit, don't misunderstand, but thats essentially what they're trying to sell. Throwing the word "Dark" in front of a monster basically tells you that its the opposite, and if you're a "good guy", you can tell exactly where this is going.

Even in plots we can see that there are overlapping entities, I mean, look at warhammer, warcraft, hell, even the new Dragon Age: Origins are all peddling the same principle story at its core: humans vs orcs

Whether you call the orcs Space Orks, the darkspawn or just orcs, its still the same concept - savage, burly, overmuscled green skinned humans with boar features.

So you'd rather have unpronounceable fictitious names versus straight-forward, memorable words? I'm sorry, but I don't see how creative it is to call some "G'bradlog" or "Synwistre" - neither of which I have a particular clue how to pronounce and certainly even if I did, I would disagree with the next person. Some games use these made up names to some proficiency; elves with euphonic, flowing names and orcs with cacophonic, harsh names and gnomes with an over-abundance of hyphens or whatever. It gives some character if done well, but it makes little sense in many settings. Why would a soldier in Modern Warfare 2 be called "Organttorak"? "Hunter" would be a much more likely nick name. And "hunter" is a likely choice for the survivors to call the jumping-and-grabbing zombies in Left 4 Dead.

On the other hand, I do agree with you on the point that "Shadow <insert other character here>" and similar are truly quite uninspired. As I was writing this, I realized how the name "Shadow Hunter" seems like a very video game-y title. Somewhat depressingly, it exists. So yes, I do agree with you that some games could really use a little spice in their names, but I don't agree that throwing bad fantasy names at the game is the right solution - and I don't have a problem with "hunter" and similar names, even if they're often used.

Finally, I find it mildly condescending that you start the post by scolding the reader over hypothetical replies.

One thing that ive found is what people think of when they hear names is shaped over time by the thing itself, and the origional meaning of the words fades away.

As an example when you hear "yugioh" now, it's a lot different of a meaning in your head then when you origionally heard it.

Because of that, I think namea aren't really a big deal (other than possibly a first impression) because in the end, a rose by any other name.... (;

Hey folks. I apologize for the delay; I flew out of state.

Quote: Because of that, I think namea aren't really a big deal (other than possibly a first impression) because in the end, a rose by any other name.... (;

That is is so true, yet so ignored by the public. They also say don't judge a book by it's cover, but it's the cover that makes me buy or not buy a book. The title and names of given entities is like your first impression when meeting someone. Again, I feel the name (being among the first things I hear) should tell me something about the character. If the name has been used so often, I can't feel any mojo from the character, and my view of the story slightly sours. This doesn't mean I immediately abolish everything else the character does... I'm not that cynical. But, I do lose faith in the author doing anything outstanding with him or her.

Quote: Some games use these made up names to some proficiency; elves with euphonic, flowing names and orcs with cacophonic, harsh names and gnomes with an over-abundance of hyphens or whatever. It gives some character if done well, but it makes little sense in many settings.

I wouldn't name a character random things for the sake of being different. I would toss a theme behind the names. For example, I have a trio of characters that share the same first syllable to their names, which is a whole word on the planet they inhabit meaning "Partial; A part of". Since this trio was formerly one character that was later split, this works.

Quote: Finally, I find it mildly condescending that you start the post by scolding the reader over hypothetical replies.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not here to offend anyone. I do feel, however, that a lot of writers KNOW that they are using recycled names in professional companies. I figure that if pros do that, a lot of people in this forum do that. I know it's presumptuous, but I honestly believe the 'name problem' is so pronounced that authors are ignoring it. This is why I take a personal tone. Again, I mean no hard feelings.

Quote: Throwing the word "Dark" in front of a monster basically tells you that its the opposite, and if you're a "good guy", you can tell exactly where this is going.

I would hate to meet the artists who find it forgivable to make their story obvious enough to make the reader/viewer, etc. know what's going to happen. Also, naming a character 'Dark' or 'Shadow' simply to make it clear they are an antagonist is almost like assuming the audience is full of people who can't tell the difference between good and evil. You can name a bad guy "Goofy-Pie" and still depict him blowing up a hospital. Don't forget Batman's Joker.

Quote: I would hate to meet the artists who find it forgivable to make their story obvious enough to make the reader/viewer, etc. know what's going to happen. Also, naming a character 'Dark' or 'Shadow' simply to make it clear they are an antagonist is almost like assuming the audience is full of people who can't tell the difference between good and evil. You can name a bad guy "Goofy-Pie" and still depict him blowing up a hospital. Don't forget Batman's Joker.

I don't mean as in "generically" evil, I'm talking about straight up evil clone i.e. Dark Samus. If you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, The Witcher is probably the most original game in the last 5 years, seeing as how it was a breakthrough in video game moral evolution. Instead of Good or Evil, it was completely morally gray, making you wonder if your decisions were really even worthwhile to begin with.

Generally, or at least from my point of view, it seems like the game makers actually hate their target audience, which is why they'll have you play a game for 60 hours, only to have the ending become a TOTAL fucking letdown (Xenogears, Final Fantasy 8, Baten Kaitos, just to name a few examples)

I mean, though they are artists, they're also employees, and the total amount of control they have is limited to their director. The range of people who play video games is vast, from young to old and brilliant to stupid.

Plus the Joker wasn't necessarily evil, it's like he said, he's an Agent of Chaos. Yes he blew up a hospital, but it was empty. The only people he personally killed were a few cops and henchmen, and nobody really seemed all that bothered by it towards the end of the movie. Any other casualty from The Dark Knight that could be attributed to the Joker could also have been attributed to at least two or three other characters.

Ok, listen. If you want entertainment that concentrates on the story more and therefore the story does become the most important and best part, grab a book and read it. You guy a game not to hear a story. As sad as it may seem to the "creative's", stories in the games have a very small part to play, and it is less than often you have an actual writer writing the story. Most companies would leave taht up to game designers. Their main concern would not really be the story (Some exception to RPG's) but the gameplay. The main point of playing games is for the gameplay, thats that form of entertainment, taking part. Movies are visual and audio, but no interaction, and thats ok, so long as they do their main points of entertainment properly.

Video games will forever be a jack of all trades and a master of none, depending on what they might concentrate on. There are few exceptions of brilliance in the industry. Putting a good game next to a good book, which do you think would have a more worked through and perfected story? Put a good game next to a movie, which would have better visuals? Put a games artwork against a painting, and a game next to music that wasnt as I like to call it 'made for a game'. Again there remain few exceptions to the rule, but game music will never trump Music.

Video Games attempt to bring multiple forms of entertainment together into one package, interactive gameplay, visual, audio, art and story.

However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While I believe my statements hold true, it is up to the individual to come to their own decision on what they believe to be 'good' or 'bad'.

Thats my ten cents,
Dub.

Quote: The main point of playing games is for the gameplay, thats that form of entertainment, taking part.

I'm not entertained by just pressing buttons or keys.

Quote: Again there remain few exceptions to the rule, but game music will never trump Music.

Say that to a game musician and tell me how that conversation goes. It's still music. Thought was put into it, whether it be a little or a lot. VG musicians still need to accommodate for the fact their music needs to accommodate a game to not break immersion in the world; not how you interact with it. Music is thankfully tougher to recycle, unlike sound effects.

Quote: You guy a game not to hear a story.

It's ignorant to assume that I or anyone else only play games for the next "high" and not care about it's observable world. I want connection and immersion, and sometimes a book isn't enough even if it is the pure physical embodiment of a story. Interactivity helps, but stock content that has been used so much deters me from feeling immersed. While the design can be solid, creativity still holds a role, and offers a means to marvel the player button mashing can not offer. There are times I do pick up a copy of Unreal Tournament when I actually DO want a "high" or a means of stress release. But this does not compare to feeling I get when playing Myst or Aura, and end up drowning in the beautiful surreal worlds they depict. They are interactively boring, but I didn't stop playing them. If you think interactivity is more important than other art forms combined in the game, then go bash a keyboard that lights up. Although this may come off as corny, balance of the used elements in development is key. I want to be able to have a flow of control, believable visual feedback, audio to control my reaction to what's on screen, story to make me feel I even have a reason to play and creativity to take me in, marvel me and make me feel like there are still developers who care about releasing more than just a product. I may hate the audience I'm developing for, but I love to create and do my best without concentrating on one form of entertainment over another. I would hate myself if I released a letdown game, and that's what I'd release if I believed what you are saying.

Let's get back to names, please. You can PM me to continue this conversation. I'd enjoy that. [smile]

Quote: Plus the Joker wasn't necessarily evil, it's like he said, he's an Agent of Chaos.

I was referring to two conflicting alignments. The Joker is still Batman's arch-enemy since his debut.

[Edited by - zyrolasting on December 19, 2009 11:22:00 AM]

Naming as an Indicator of Character Depth

It seems that your post is more about character depth than naming.
Deeper characters in games usually have names. You were talking
about uninspired names as a sign of shallow characters.


Name as a Representation

An impression is a representation. Understanding any representation
includes understanding the type of information it represents and how
the information is represented.

Information types encoded in a name:
o Role
o Lineage
o Features

Information encoding methods in a name:
o Uncorrelated
o Direct meaning
o Audio association
o Visual association
o Semantic association

Example: "Hunter"
Information type: Role
Encoding method: Direct meaning

If hunter is an extinct role in the game world, naming a character
"hunter" could serve to encode its lineage. If hunter is no an undefined
role in the context, the name "hunter" could be a semantic association
that encodes a feature. Naming a composer "hunter" could be a visual
or audio association pertaining to its style.

What type of people are "hunters" on a forum? What do they hunt?


Naming as a Method

Understanding any method includes understand its goal, its procedure,
its limitations, and its requirements.

Goals:
o To differentiate
o To uniquely identify
o To non-uniquely identify

Procedure:

To differentiate:
o Understand the feature that is to be differentiated
o Get a name corresponding to that difference

To uniquely identify
o Understand the range of names that already exist
o Get a name that is different

To non-uniquely identify
o Understand the feature that associates the entity to its group
o Get a name corresponding to that similarity

Limitations:
o Length (unless you are naming chemicals or the like)
o Memorability
o Believability
o Meaningfulness
o Pronounciability

Requirements:
o Knowledge about the intended information type to encode
o Intended method of encoding.

More ways to think about names:

o Names as a component of identity
o Names as an attachment to an entity
o Names as an attachment to an identity
o Names as a component of a representation